About your Search

20130113
20130121
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5 (some duplicates have been removed)
of five positions in the office of treasurer and tax collector for the implementation of proposition e and the gross receipts tax. >> would you call item no. 8 as w. item no. 8, ordinance appropriating $1,566,145 from the general fund reserves so to the san francisco department of treasurer/tax collector for gross receipts tax implementation planing for fy2012-2013. >> these two item goes hand in hand. so we have, i believe greg cotto from the treasurer/tax collector to present on these two items. >> good afternoon, supervisors. thank you very much for taking up these items. and i did want to, before i get into this presentation, thank the mayor and particularly the mayor's budget office and controller and his economic team, as well as the city attorney's office. president chiu, supervisor farrell and supervisor avalos. i would like to give a brief overviewhoun it changes things fort taxpayer and how the office of treasurer/tax collector interacted with the public. the ordinance was passed on november 6th. and it does not apply to the 2013 or prior tax years. and just for your inf
reviewed rather than just the structure within the treasurer/tax collector? it could very well be this is right classification. i just want to understand that process. >> supervisor, as you know, all of the city's classifications are reviewed by dhr and i know dhr did work with the treasurer's office to identify the appropriate classifications. the09 53 position, just the salary and range for that position is $125,000 to $159,000 on an annual basis. i think the information reflected in the budget analyst's report is the fully-loaded costs meaning the fringe benefits and the salaries as well. the deputy director 3 the 0 53 as i understand is the appropriate deputy director level for the treasurer's office based on their organizational structure, which uses the 0953 classification. >> if i just take a look at the high-end of that classification, at $159,000, and i'm multiply it .42, i still only get $226,000, so i just wanted to understand what the differential was. why don't we go to the budget analyst's report. >> madame chair and supervisor avalos, yes, that number in our
contract cost is $12 million and that includes $9 million over six years between the treasurer/tax collector and mani tron manitron and contract of 21 xtech, that would be for $3 million over a five-year period, which is anticipated. and again, if you look at this request, as you know, you are only getting approximately a 6-month request. if you look at it on an annualized basis the salary cost of some $400,000 would actually be over $800,000. we point out on page 7 of or report, that file 121197, amending the city's annual salary ordinance creating the five new positions is equal to 2.5 fte in 2013; with salary and mandatory benefits. that is the figure shown in table 2 on page 6 of our report. however, in order for the positions to be .5 fte, the new employees would need to be added to the payroll on january 1st, 2013. obviously, that can't happen. so furthermore, we point out that the proposed supplemental ordinance only includes -- that is the requested itself doesn't include that number $418,185. so taking those two factors into consideration, the correct fte count should b
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5 (some duplicates have been removed)